Layoffs, Changes In Leadership May Signal Change In Direction As Well

Commentary And Analysis By Rich Davidson, Lee Bottom Flying Field

Last month, the aviation public got its first view of changes that have been quietly sweeping through EAA. Unnoticed by rank and file members until that day, they have been occurring since Rod Hightower came to the party. Let there be no doubt, these and many more have and will continue to happen. But are they that bad? It depends on what you believe about EAA.

There’s no question that many current and past EAA members are unhappy with the organization. Having started out as a grass roots, wrench it together in your basement, calloused hands type of assembly, it isn’t hard to understand why. Once a bastion of America’s salt of the earth, risk be damned, pursue your dreams citizens, in recent years it had become a bureaucracy of “Poberezny yes men” and ever lasting board members whose focus was AirVenture, fundraising, and risk aversion.

Then change happened, and pink slips went out to some 30 employees in what Hightower called a "reorganization." That day, a quick scan of social networks and all other forms of messaging revealed immediately that people were not happy. Humans, by nature, do not like change. Pilots dislike the mere discussion. And so began the weekend of EAA Facebook flaming. A week later, fading embers gave up the remaining heat and it was over. Those who were let go were already talking of other options while those who would like to leave searched the horizon. Everyone else fell silent. Looking back, it is apparent that some really good people were let go and some that should have been were not. Parallel to this, some of those remaining should have been promoted and some of those that were should not have been. That my friends, sums up the staff changes. Any questions?

As for the group’s leadership, EAA has been a free floating barge for some time. Yes, there was Paul and then there was Tom. Yet, despite all the good things I can say about both, the reality is that EAA has been adrift for the last five to ten years. Everyone knows this.

A few people still blame Paul, quite a few blame Tom, others who know the whole story say it was a combination of leadership, the board, and HQ employees that couldn’t say no. Whoever is right, in the process EAA became little more than AirVenture and a magazine. But really, what group isn’t?

Look at any organization to see what defines the “group” and it almost always comes down to those who get the magazine and those that attend the event. You may not want to agree but that’s clearly what most of them are. Those that are more have a spirit, a soul. EAA had that but most of it has gone. This is where the big debate about recent changes comes to a head; soul or money?

On the surface, the question of soul or money seems easy, doesn’t it?  No real pilot would ever say money because aviation is a sport of souls. However, no successful organization ever operated long without money. So what’s a group to do? I believe Rod Hightower, and those around him, looked at the situation like a business, made decisions based on money, then, understanding they had to keep the membership involved, launched a plan to put the face of a soul on it. Now let me be clear, despite the evidence they are not being completely open with their members about changes, I am not saying they are being deceptive. Instead, I believe the new BMOC decided EAA needed to grow, broaden its base, and expand its level of influence and that to do so meant choosing money over soul, metal over fabric. Unfortunately, although I don’t know if it was the right decision, I do believe that had they chosen soul, to stay EAA, many more cuts would likely have been required. This too would have been wildly unpopular with members.

I wish I had a way of knowing how many true EAA members, in the spirit of the old days, exist today?  Caution: being in love with the idea of being an old style EAA member does not make you one. Could EAA survive on them alone?  Are there enough of them left?  And what about the die-hard EAA members that complain but when talk turns to walk, they all want to go to Oshkosh because it is the biggest aviation event in the world?  Are these people truly mad at EAA?  If so, then wouldn’t they instead go to any number of other events struggling to attract followers?  One would assume so yet, year after year, EAA members vote with their feet and go to Oshkosh after a year of bitching about Oshkosh. For leaders, it’s a tough place to be. This is no different than politicians dealing with constituents who complain about spending and then ask them to allocate money to their issue of choice; if people don’t like something, why do they keep coming back for more?  For a group, or country for that matter, to be successful, everyone has to understand the issues at hand and be on the same team. Adapting to changing times EAA leadership understands. But, do the members?

What is it that EAA members are looking to get from EAA?  My experience tells me they want to feel like part of a group, they like to attend Oshkosh, hope to read about homebuilt planes in Sport Aviation, and a few of them actually attend and are members of active EAA Chapters; remember those?  Some of them still get together and go to Oshkosh as such. But, anymore a lot of them come away feeling like they brought a stage coach to a car show. Yes the old days are gone, but I believe most of the old time members are also. Yet, accept it or not, EAA continues to offer the things most modern members want.

Today the typical EAA member wants easy to build flying Lego kits like RV’s, feels unsafe without flight following, has no idea what a rudder is, and is deathly afraid of clouds. Yet, as soon as EAA puts an article in Sport Aviation about a turbine, they flip out. Yes, I flipped out over the hiring of Mac but I also don’t match the descriptors from the sentence two back. So what’s your excuse?  Maybe you, like me, wish the old days never left, and if so, I feel for you. But let’s face it, as long as most members say one thing but truly believe another, EAA as we know it is dead.

Let me ask you something. If you were Rod Hightower and a member complained that you never covered cheap (inexpensive) airplanes, how would you respond?  I know how I would because nearly every week I read some post from some guy bitching about all the expensive planes in Sport Aviation. The lucky few of these people I know get the same response, “Hey, I saw your post and wanted to let you know there’s a Fly-Baby for sale a hundred miles away for $7500, go get it”. All of them give me the same response, “Well, I’m not in the market for a plane”. “Then why the hell are you complaining about the lack of cheap airplanes,” I ask.

Ultimately, for EAA to support you as EAA, then you have to actually want EAA, not just talk about it. If you are happy getting a monthly magazine, like to attend the largest aviation event in the world as a member, and you like the way being an EAA member infers you are a little more of a pilot than others who are not, then hey, you are at the right place and you should be happy. But, if you wish all planes were taildraggers, ATC didn’t exist, and every runway was grass, then there are plenty of events for you to attend instead of Oshkosh. There’s this one in Southern Indiana next to the river…

If you’ve been reading my posts for some time, maybe you’re wondering what’s happened to me.
Yes, I have certainly had my share of issues with EAA through the years but I also truly long for the old days of EAA. Most in their hearts do not and, to me, that is a far bigger crisis than change at EAA.

I will share the new mantra being shared internally is that the EAA is AirVenture with a large membership base, versus a large membership base that happens to put on AirVenture.

Rich Davidson co-owns Lee Bottom Flying Field (64I) in Indiana with his wife Ginger. The field is the home to the annual Wood, Fabric, and Tailwheels Fly-In.

FMI: www.leebottom.com